In these pages last week, Jonathan Freedland accused me of indulging in a "viciously personal" attack on, and misrepresenting the views of, Mick Davis.

Let me begin with a clarification. My source was the Jewish Chronicle itself, which summarised Davis's remarks by stating: "One of British Jewry's most senior leaders this week shattered a long-standing taboo by publicly criticising Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the peace process, voicing moral reservations about some of Israel's policies and calling for criticism of Israel to be voiced freely throughout the community."

Nearly a month has passed and the fallout keeps falling. The episode that future historians of Anglo-Jewry will surely dub "The Mick Davis Affair" goes on and on, as supporters and critics of the chairman of the UJIA argue ferociously about his right to speak, his motives and his judgment following the remarks he made about Israel and the diaspora at a public meeting in London in mid-November.

No one of any intelligence can dispute the right of Mr Mick Davis, as a private individual, to say - in public and within reason- whatever he likes about anything he feels the need to say anything he likes about. But if, in public, Mr Davis - the head of UJIA - chooses to unburden himself of certain prejudices to which he has succumbed concerning the state of Israel, its government and the proceedings of its parliament, he runs certain risks.

Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UK, this week struck back at UJIA chairman Mick Davis over his outspoken comments on Israel, accusing him of using language "straight from our opponents' lexicon", calling much of his criticism "unwarranted" and urging British Jews to take greater pride in the country.

In an article in today's JC, Mr Prosor sprang to the defence of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accused by the UJIA leader of lacking the courage to advance the peace process.

As the saying goes, you should practice what you preach - not what emerged from the recent panel discussion between Peter Beinart, former editor of the US liberal weekly the New Republic and recent heir to the late Tony Judt's critique of Zionism, Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, and Mick Davis, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council.

Israel is a democratic State - as is Britain. But that does not mean I agree with all the policies of either government. Indeed, in Britain, I am an active parliamentarian in an opposition party. And regrettably, there are many policies of Israel's government with whichI also disagree.

Some 13 years ago, I spent time in the Arab Israeli town of Sakhnin. There, I made true and lasting friends with some of the most honourable Israelis. They regarded themselves as proud Arab citizens of Israel. What is currently occurring with the Arab population of sovereign Israel is of deep concern.

I welcome Mick Davis' courage and comments. They come from a man deeply committed to Israel.

We worry lest the Jewish state cease to exist because of a military defeat. More recently we've become concerned Israel may no longer be Jewish because of demographic factors. But it is also possible that Israel ceases to be a 'Jewish' state for ethical reasons, because it fails to remain faithful to the 3000-year-old ethical traditions of Judaism.